IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-60416

Summary Calendar

DO MUNG,

Petitioner

v.

WILLIAM P. BARR, U. S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,

Respondent

Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

BIA No. A089 470 806

Before DENNIS, CLEMENT, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Do Mung, a native and citizen of Burma, petitions this court for review 

of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing his appeal 

from the denial of his application for asylum and withholding of removal. He 

argues that the immigration judge (IJ) exceeded the scope of the remand; that 

the immigration court lacked jurisdiction in light of Pereira v. Sessions, 

138 S. Ct. 2105, 2108 (2018); and that the record demonstrates that he suffered 

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

July 16, 2019

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 18-60416 Document: 00515036379 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/16/2019
No. 18-60416

2

past persecution, has a well-founded fear of persecution, and that he is unable 

to relocate within Burma. He also moves to supplement the record with a copy 

of the United States Department of State 2017 Human Rights Report on 

Burma.

Mung’s arguments regarding jurisdiction and past persecution are 

unexhausted. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1); see also Omari v. Holder, 562 F.3d 

314, 318 (5th Cir. 2009). Consequently, we lack jurisdiction to consider them. 

§ 1252(d)(1).

The Immigration and Nationality Act requires that this court “decide the 

petition [for review] only on the administrative record on which the order of 

removal is based.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(A). Accordingly, Mung’s motion to 

supplement is denied.

Mung’s claim that the IJ exceeded the scope of the remand is without 

merit. The BIA’s remand order did not explicitly limit the scope of the IJ’s 

inquiry. Therefore, the remand was effective for the stated purpose, 

determining whether Mung had a well-founded fear of persecution, and for 

consideration of all other matters the IJ deemed appropriate. See Matter of 

Patel, 16 I. & N. Dec. 600, 601 (BIA 1978); Bianco v. Holder, 624 F.3d 265, 274 

(5th Cir. 2010).

Finally, changes in country conditions, namely, the rise to power of the 

pro-democracy political party he supported, make it unlikely that he would be 

forced to serve a 25-year sentence for engaging in pro-democracy activities 

critical of the prior military regime. As such, Mung has failed to demonstrate 

that the record compels the conclusion that it is more likely than not that he 

will be persecuted because of his political beliefs if he returns to Burma. 

See Efe v. Ashcroft, 293 F.3d 899, 906 (5th Cir. 2002).

 Case: 18-60416 Document: 00515036379 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/16/2019
No. 18-60416

3

In light of the foregoing Mung’s petition for review is DENIED IN PART 

and DISMISSED IN PART for lack of jursidiction. His motion to supplement 

the record is DENIED.

 Case: 18-60416 Document: 00515036379 Page: 3 Date Filed: 07/16/2019